muppetfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:The Boggart
Source The Henson press release cited as this article's source isn't on the web anymore. A Feb 2007 article in Variety says that the movie was in development. Is there any other source for this information? -- Danny (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC) :A working link to the press release. -- Brad D. (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC) ::As I'd suggested before, I'd feel more comfortable merging this page, Monster Blood Tattoo, and The Doubtful Guest to Optioned Properties (and if need be, for the time being, that page can be double categorized, in Unfinished *and* In Development for the 2007 slate). The information is over a year old for all three from the same announcement, and while that's a relatively short time in movie making terms, with nothing else since, individual pages don't make sense. If info surfaces later, and it's clear the projects are either still going on or at least reached a certain phase, enough to support an article, they can be taken out and become individual pages again. This December 2005 article about the hiring of Jason Lust lists a whole slew of projects, not one of which has been made to date, and as far as can be determined, few if any even made it past the option stage. This isn't pessimism so much as a practical concern for the Wiki (bias: we've passed 16,000 and we'll reach 16,500 articles by early March, so merging skimpy pages where all the info comes from the same press release makes the next milestone more meaningful). The text can be adjusted, maybe broken up into years, and the 2007 segment carefully worded to neither imply that the projects are dead *or* that we know for sure that they're currently in development or production. Just that they've been announced, and til then, the Wiki suspends judgement; it's up to readers what they want to assume from Henson's statement of intent. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC) :::I agree. It's not really about pessimism; just an interest in accuracy. On this page, we're saying that the movie is "currently in development", and we don't know if that's still true. Nobody issues a press release saying that a project has been dropped, so we won't ever know when our information becomes outdated. I think it's safer to say that a book has been optioned, which we know is true. -- Danny (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC) ::::There seems to be a reasonable consensus here, and no activity in weeks, so I'll take off the talk page, and merge when I get a chance. I'm thinking I might reorganize Optioned Properties with year headings, in reverse chronological order with the latest batch on top, and double categorized in In Development and Unfinished Projects. That way, it saves spice and neither implies that we know for a fact that it's still in development or that it's dead. It can just state the facts of that one press release, and let readers judge for themselvs. And as mentioned before, if any more notable, specific info on a given project surfaces, enough to justify a single page, it can be broken out again. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)